von Murrin Posted November 20, 2001 Share Posted November 20, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by JasonC: StuG were not organic to FJ divisions. Both FJ and Luftwaffe field divisions, like all infantry divisions, did have a divisional AT battalion, which usually had towed PAK but sometimes had 1 company of StuG or Marder, or one of each. In addition, there were a few - very few - higher level StuG formations that were part of the Luftwaffe ground forces, and designated "FJ". Just like army StuG brigades, these were independent battalion-sized units (called "brigades" as a legacy of the old artillery unit size designations StuGs came from) at the corps or army level, used to support this or that line infantry division. They seem to be the source of the CM StuG availability.<hr></blockquote> Thank you for clearing that up. Nathanael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted November 20, 2001 Share Posted November 20, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai: yes the opening stages of the italian campaign were hard fought and could have ended in a loss. the stukas realy did a number on the anzio assault<hr></blockquote> I wouldn't consider Anzio to be in "the opening stages of the Italian Campaign". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex Bellator Posted November 20, 2001 Share Posted November 20, 2001 Quote by Andrew Hedges <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>The StuGs were actually disassembled and the parts distributed...<hr></blockquote> A real gem, the first laugh out loud post I've read for ages. Nice one Andrew! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Chef Sakai Posted November 20, 2001 Share Posted November 20, 2001 thats fine john, but technicly it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Chef Sakai Posted November 20, 2001 Share Posted November 20, 2001 though i can see where your coming from though john Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puff the Magic Dragon Posted November 20, 2001 Share Posted November 20, 2001 It is possible - maybe - that it is a missunderstanding, and BTS was wrong when they add StGs to the Fallschirmjaeger. I've forgotten were it was excactly, I will try to find the source, but I have seen a photo of StG, the crew worn Fallschirmjäger helmets. But the text said, they worn this helmets because no others were available, but for some reasons they need helmets. Damned, were is my memory when I need it . But anyway, in the game you can't distinguish them, and I'm pretty sure that Fallschirmjäger were supported by StGs in the Normandie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Chef Sakai Posted November 20, 2001 Share Posted November 20, 2001 well if your wondering where your memory went, your screen name can lead others to come to a certain conclusion hehe j/k by the way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puff the Magic Dragon Posted November 20, 2001 Share Posted November 20, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai: well if your wondering where your memory went, your screen name can lead others to come to a certain conclusion hehe j/k by the way<hr></blockquote> Hu? You mean an AC-47 Gunship has stolen my memory :eek: ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted November 20, 2001 Share Posted November 20, 2001 May 12 1943: End of conflict in North Africa July 9 1943: Start of Op Husky (landings in Sicily) Aug 17 1943: Sicily clear of Axis forces Sept 3 1943: First landings on Italian mainland Sept 9 1943: Landings at Salerno Sep 11 1943: Landings at Brindisi Jan 3 1944: Cassino I Jan 22 1944: Landings at Anzio and Nettuno Feb 15 1944: Cassino II The landings at Anzio came over four months after the first landings on the mainland (6 months after the first landings on Sicily), and after the first battle of Cassino. IMHO, that makes it well after "the opening stages". YMMV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted November 21, 2001 Share Posted November 21, 2001 Late war FJ had their own StuGs. http://www.ww2.dk/ground/goering.html FWIW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bog Posted November 21, 2001 Share Posted November 21, 2001 "Puffing" the "Magic Dragon"? Think about US servicemen in Vietnam. Think real hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr_B Posted November 21, 2001 Share Posted November 21, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges: a StuG could be assembled in as little as 15 minutes.<hr></blockquote> And stupid me who thought that the A-team where the only guies (strange spelling there) who could assamble a AFV in that time. But they've made the art perfect in that they don't need to carry parts or equipment (always some frindly farmer with a fresh supply of steel plates and welding gear popping up when needed). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheck Posted November 21, 2001 Share Posted November 21, 2001 Aside from JasonC's cooments - here is some additional formations you'll find Fallsch. armor.: In Normandy: II.Fallsch.Korps. - 12.Fallsch.StuG.Brig. (Independent assault artillery btl. / abt. were often named brigades when they were actually just btl.) was orginally StuG.Abt.2 der Luftwaffe. other: I.Fallsch.Korps. - 11.Fallsch.StuG.Brig. was orginally StuG.Abt.1 der Luftwaffe. Fallsch.StuG.Brig.21 formed 19.1.45 from Fallsch.StuG.Brig.Schmitz and was with the 1.Fallsch.Armee The Fallsch. Div.s were organized to be infantry and airmobile (no duhhh...), consequenlty no organic armor. However their corps and armee formations did have armor. And they sometimes operated with independent Heer armor units in support (these were typically korps or higher level armor formations). Note - typically each Korps had a Aufkl.Abt. attached to it also (which was gepanzt or mechanized). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patgod Posted November 21, 2001 Share Posted November 21, 2001 i pity the fool who dont paradrop in with his stug! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty's Double Posted November 21, 2001 Share Posted November 21, 2001 Duck everyone, red hot fragments of irony! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted November 21, 2001 Share Posted November 21, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by argie: Oh! And also was the airborne operation in the Ardennes ofensive, an absolute fiasco, with paratroopers who never jumped before, pilots that never worked with paratroopers, navigators that never found those f***g bridges, etc. As an interesting trivia, one of the leaders of the operations jumped with a Russian parachute, and he said that was much better than the German ones. Also, he jumped with a broken arm, so he used only one hand to control the Russian parachute. I have the reference in another computer. Is one of those post war essays German officers wrote for US Army.<hr></blockquote> Broken arm? That must have been Freiherr von der Heydte. The man and his regiment were a seriously antisocial menace to the Canadian 1st Army during the Scheldt battles, and later during Veritable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tuomas Posted November 21, 2001 Share Posted November 21, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Sheck: Aside from JasonC's cooments - here is some additional formations you'll find Fallsch. armor.: In Normandy: II.Fallsch.Korps. - 12.Fallsch.StuG.Brig. (Independent assault artillery btl. / abt. were often named brigades when they were actually just btl.) was orginally StuG.Abt.2 der Luftwaffe. other: I.Fallsch.Korps. - 11.Fallsch.StuG.Brig. was orginally StuG.Abt.1 der Luftwaffe. Fallsch.StuG.Brig.21 formed 19.1.45 from Fallsch.StuG.Brig.Schmitz and was with the 1.Fallsch.Armee The Fallsch. Div.s were organized to be infantry and airmobile (no duhhh...)<hr></blockquote> I agree on your statements above, only execpt one doesn't spell falsch with capital F or with double-l. [Edited to add] I can't buy falsch StuG's (or any falsch panzer for that matter) even when I'm playing with Fallschirmjäger! BTS, please fix or do somefink! I did not pay for a broken game! -TNT- [ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: Tuomas ]</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted November 21, 2001 Share Posted November 21, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Tuomas: I agree on your statements above, only execpt one doesn't spell falsch with capital F or with double-l.<hr></blockquote> One does. Correct abbreviation would be FJ, IIRC. Your spelling is the German word for 'wrong'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted November 21, 2001 Share Posted November 21, 2001 Um, those aren't "additional" formations. The 11, 12, and 21st StuG Brigades are it. Those are the ones I listed, and the ones repeated by the later post. Later some of the names changed - 111 for the 11th rebuilt in 1945, e.g. - same formation. But those (and the StuGs in HG Panzer, although the 21st seems to be a name change for some of those from the summer of 1944 on, actually) - were it. 45 in Italy, 11 in Normandy, 10 or less at Arnhem, 45 at Nancy, 27 in the Bulge, 45 in the Reichswald, a few more in late war rebuilds of the same units. All told, probably less than 300 for the whole war, all fronts, and no more than half that amount at any given time. For 13 FJ infantry divisions (and the one Panzer division, and not counting 22 Luftwaffe field divisions, which had no more than 10 apiece in their AT battalions, if that). It was not "ordinary" for FJ to have StuG support. Most of the time they fought as leg infantry, with limited artillery support to boot, and with varying levels of smaller arms, from the Heer infantry de facto standard up to the CM depiction at the extreme high end (which the best Heer infantry divisions also reached). Having limited StuG support was exceptional, but it did happen sometimes, on a small scale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tuomas Posted November 21, 2001 Share Posted November 21, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Germanboy: One does.<hr></blockquote> Actually two, but let's not get in to that. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr> Your spelling is the German word for 'wrong'.<hr></blockquote> YM 'fake' HTH. HAND -TNT- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted November 21, 2001 Share Posted November 21, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Tuomas: YM 'fake' HTH. HAND -TNT-<hr></blockquote> What on earth are you talking about? Also, do you really think that a Finn should give a German lessons about how to spell a German word (ignoring for the moment that I do that all the time with English native speakers)? Just asking. Fallschirmjaeger is a noun, hence capital letter at the start. Fallschirmjaegersturmgeschuetzabteilung (yes, that is one word) is also a noun, hence also capital letter at the start. Fallschirm is written with two 'l'. 'Falsch' can mean 'wrong' or something along the lines of 'devious slimeball', but not 'fake' - that is usually 'gefaelscht', because it implies an action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted November 21, 2001 Share Posted November 21, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by JasonC: Most of the time they fought as leg infantry, with limited artillery support to boot<hr></blockquote> This statement will be news to the Canadian veterans of Blockbuster, and the British vets of Veritable. During the Rhineland battles, the Germans (including a number of FJ formations) were extremely well supported by IIRC about 1,000 guns and 700 mortars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted November 21, 2001 Share Posted November 21, 2001 The Germans? "Including FJ"? The whole point is the FJ had less artillery support than line infantry divisions, despite supposedly being elite formations. Not that the German army had no artillery, but that the FJ was a poor cousin even to the standard army infantry when it came to weight of artillery metal. Compare the following TOE vs. reality breakdowns for artillery strengths in Normandy, by force type, per division - Gun Size - Force Type - Ideal TOE - Actual 122mm+ H. Infantry 12 11.4 105mm H. Infantry 36 19.2 99mm- H. Infantry 0 8.3 All H. Infantry 48 38.9 122mm+ H. Panzer 18 16.3 105mm H. Panzer 24 23.5 All H. Panzer 42 39.8 122mm+ SS Panzer 18 15.2 105mm SS Panzer 28 26.2 All SS Panzer 46 41.3 122mm+ FJ&Luft 0 2.4 105mm FJ&Luft 36 12.6 99mm- FJ&Luft 0 3.2 All FJ&Luft 36 18.2 All the other force types had around 40 guns per division. The plain infantry had to use a portion of captured Russian, French or Czech guns to fill out their numbers, but had about their authorized strength in heavy pieces and at least 3/4ths their authorized strength overall. The Panzer divisions did not have to skimp with light pieces, and the only issue they faced was being marginally understrength in the larger pieces. But the FJ and Luftwaffe field forces had only half their already smaller TOE of guns. The few heavier pieces they had were all captured Russian 122mm. Even the static coast defense infantry divisions of the regular army, the poorest part of the regular army force, had 5/3rds as much artillery as the FJ did. Like many paratroop formations, they were expected to fight "light", with quality of manpower making up for weight of artillery and other forms of support. Which it could do, although not indefinitely, and only at a higher cost in casualties. The point is the FJ (not the German army, notice, the FJ) were comparatively "light infantry" forces, not "heavy division" forces, in modern terminology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted November 21, 2001 Share Posted November 21, 2001 'Were expected to', sure. 'Did' - well not during the Rhineland battles, they did not. There was such a load of guns and mortars available to the German army that they could even spare somefink for the poor paras. They were not told that they had to make do without it because once upon a time 'they were expected to fight light'. Written by Major-General Essame ret.: Every German gun and mortar within range from south, east, and north, concentrated on the Algonquins. The colume of fire surpassed anything experienced by the Canadiens in the whole campaign. Von Lüttwitz flung in a fresh battalion of the 24th Parachute Regiment to fight alongside 116th Panzer Division in the gap. p. 169 'The battle for Germany' - randomly pulled from the description of the Rhineland battles. Does not sound like light artillery support to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tuomas Posted November 22, 2001 Share Posted November 22, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Germanboy: Also, do you really think that a Finn should give a German lessons about how to spell a German word (ignoring for the moment that I do that all the time with English native speakers)? Just asking.<hr></blockquote> Glad you asked! Yes. You agree that if there is an error it must be corrected, right? Lastly why do you think nationality does have a factor here? And BTW what makes me a Finn? <blockquote>quote:</font><hr> Fallschirmjaeger is a noun, hence capital letter at the start. Fallschirmjaegersturmgeschuetzabteilung (yes, that is one word) is also a noun, hence also capital letter at the start. Fallschirm is written with two 'l'.<hr></blockquote> I agree. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr> 'Falsch' can mean 'wrong' or something along the lines of 'devious slimeball', but not 'fake' - that is usually 'gefaelscht', because it implies an action.<hr></blockquote> Falsche Zähne, falsches Geld? Allthough you could say "Das Geld ist gefälscht". BTW "fake" also implies an action. It is a verb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts